Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Former NASA Scientists, Astronauts Criticize


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#31    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,791 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:39 PM

View PostBFB, on 12 April 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

What a load of bull.

Climatology is also a specialization in atmospheric science.

First you get a bachelor's degree in meteorology. You are now an atmospheric scientist.

To get a master's degree in atmospheric science you need to specialise in something, which could be climatology.

Even if so, it still is one out of how many that work or worked at NASA? The point remains, most of the opinions of the gentlemen above are as valid as your or mine. Which in the world of real science is well.... somewhere behind the janitor's opinion.

Ah yes, as far as I remember, climatologists working for the guv have at least a PhD. But sometimes things slip my attention.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#32    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:59 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 12 April 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Ah yes, as far as I remember, [url="What%20do%20you%20have%20to%20take%20in%20college%20to%20become%20a%20climatologist?"]climatologists working for the guv have at least a PhD. But sometimes things slip my attention.

Questionmark no need for you to google "What do you have to take in college to become a climatologist" Btw why can I see that in the reply? Is it a link?

But really? Most scientist working for the government have a Ph.D?

If you were hiring wouldn't you choose a candidate with a Ph.D? Or do you settle for the next best?

Edited by BFB, 12 April 2012 - 11:00 PM.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#33    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,791 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:19 PM

View PostBFB, on 12 April 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Questionmark no need for you to google "What do you have to take in college to become a climatologist" Btw why can I see that in the reply? Is it a link?

But really? Most scientist working for the government have a Ph.D?

If you were hiring wouldn't you choose a candidate with a Ph.D? Or do you settle for the next best?

You try to switch the theme now? And naturally if you make a claim I try to find out if unsure... and I don't use Google I use Ixquick.

And sincerely, depends, for those reading the weather a masters is enough, but here comes the next link for you confirming the above, and if you give me a few hours to run through USA jobs (descriptions are a little garbled there) and will probably come up with the same: minimum requirement to work for the government as climatologist is a PhD. Meteorologist in non-research positions need a Masters. Technical assistants an Associate. And for that I don't need to google (I just was unsure if there is a non-research climatologist job, well evidently not). And if the government cannot find a PhD or a Master to fill the position it remains vacant until they can (or at least that is how I remember it worked at Human Resources).

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#34    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:09 AM

View PostJayMark, on 12 April 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

I have glanced at the list. French is my first language (Québec).

That's a lot of baloney there. I have almost finished the book "Le Populisme Climatique" which you should read if you haven't yet. It covers some of the biggest climato-skepticism campaings.

A lot of the names in this list were invoked in the book and these frauds have been debunked again and again especially Claude Allègre et Vincent Courtillot which are important players in the campaign. Fossil fuel industries are all behind it. This has been shown, disclosed and proven many times.

A lot of the arguments shown on this list can be debunked in a couple of sentences with scientific facts. Many of them also contradict themselves. That, to begin with, is simply rediculous. Some say we are warming, some say we don't, others say we are cooling. Some say CO2 levels have raised but are not contributing to an increase in forcing while others say that CO2 levels are actually decreasing. And you have those green prophets that say that since CO2 is good for plants, there is nothing to worry about and that it's only going to help us if anything. Etc etc et cetera.

Peace my French cousin!
I'm an American who just happen to be born in France and who lives there for the moment :P and sorry, I don't believe in global warming.  Knowing we just getting out of the last ice age it is normal that the climate becomes warmer.  Furthermore, the creation of a paranoia involving CO2 has permitted the creation of a carbon tax on which corporate greed is preying like vultures.  
Explain to me why EU has not banned the use of 2 stroke engine who pollutes more than my little Citroen diesel?  Why streets in towns and cities have been narrowed down slowing to almost an alt when one knows that it's the change in acceleration that creates more pollution.  It doesn't make sense.  Why the excellent public transportation available in the 70's is now down to half?
Trust me with gas price as high as they are here (1.50 euros for a LITER of diesel) people would use public transportation.  When I go to Metz or Nancy for business it's cheaper for me to take the car than take the train and that's include parking.  45 kms by train to Metz (about 27 miles) costs 14,27 euros round trip and costs me 7 euros by car.
There is something wrong with the system, although I really don't want ramble over it because it would go towards the conspiracy theories.
Peace to you to.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#35    Heroic Bishop

Heroic Bishop

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:13 AM

The biggest problem I can see is that all of this 'Environmental' vogue, has just become the latest religion to riddle the planet. And we are already arriving at the stage where, in the same vein as the world religions, you cannot question their validity without being branded a heretic and being viewed negatively by society.

I look around the English landscape which is now full of the growing malignant cancer that is the wind turbine, something that would probably have to work it's whole life just to offset the so called 'carbon footprint' of it's own construction and erection, and can't help looking at the hysteria this new religion is causing. Unlike the other religions though, I hope this one goes away.

I mean come on...Al Gore wins accolades for film making?..it just shows, anyone can jump on the band wagon and become a champion of the new faithful.

Posted Image

"Yea though I walk through the Valley of Death... I shall fear no evil. For I am at 80,000 feet and climbing." - Psalm of the SR-71


#36    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,365 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The other side

  • Stop Climate Change: Plant a Rain Forest Today!

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:11 AM

If it's religious to say the world is not flat, was not created in 4004BC, and that life on it was not all created in a couple of days but instead evolved over thousands of millions of years, then I guess it's also religious to say that human activity can affect the climate.

;)

Worth noting that the driving force behind objections to the 'heretical' idea that humans can adversely affect the climate comes from  fundamentalist Christians in the US, see, for example: http://www.ibtimes.c...ng-catholic.htm - so it's always struck me as quite ironic that acceptance of climate science is described as 'religious'!

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#37    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,791 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:30 AM

View PostVigilanis, on 13 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

The biggest problem I can see is that all of this 'Environmental' vogue, has just become the latest religion to riddle the planet. And we are already arriving at the stage where, in the same vein as the world religions, you cannot question their validity without being branded a heretic and being viewed negatively by society.

I look around the English landscape which is now full of the growing malignant cancer that is the wind turbine, something that would probably have to work it's whole life just to offset the so called 'carbon footprint' of it's own construction and erection, and can't help looking at the hysteria this new religion is causing. Unlike the other religions though, I hope this one goes away.

I mean come on...Al Gore wins accolades for film making?..it just shows, anyone can jump on the band wagon and become a champion of the new faithful.

Thank to Al Gore the discoveries of Scientists since the 1950s that had been mostly ignored came to publicity. The fact that a certain greenhouse gas was growing in a dangerous fashion was discovered in 1954 and that the world was consequently warming in 1973. I don't care who jumped on the bandwagon as long as the majority are now aware of the problem. Now they either react or suffer the consequences.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#38    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:24 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 12 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

You try to switch the theme now? And naturally if you make a claim I try to find out if unsure... and I don't use Google I use Ixquick.

And sincerely, depends, for those reading the weather a masters is enough, but here comes the next link for you confirming the above, and if you give me a few hours to run through USA jobs (descriptions are a little garbled there) and will probably come up with the same: minimum requirement to work for the government as climatologist is a PhD. Meteorologist in non-research positions need a Masters. Technical assistants an Associate. And for that I don't need to google (I just was unsure if there is a non-research climatologist job, well evidently not). And if the government cannot find a PhD or a Master to fill the position it remains vacant until they can (or at least that is how I remember it worked at Human Resources).

What do you mean by "switch the theme"?

Questionmark i dont now what you are going on about. Or i think so, but cannot see the point? Is it because you are trying to tell me that meteorologists don't know anything about climate? That 60% of the education to become a climatologist is studing meteorology?

As a student in meteorology i can tell you we study the Earth system, radiative transfer, atmospheric thermodynamics, atmospheric dynamics, climate dynamics, the atmospheric boundary layer and a lot more. (All a must in climatology) We dont just study weather systems and cloud microphysics, there's a lot more in the field of meteorology than just doing weather .

Your argument that meteorologists knows as little as you do is completely ridiculous. With out a background in meteorology it's pretty hard to understand how our climate works. Many geologists who want to become a climatologist need a degree in meteorology or at least many supplement courses in the field of meteorology. I have a geologist in my class, he worked for the city council for about 20 years but wanted to move into the field of climatology since the city council closed down his department. He virtually had no knowledge of adiabatic processes and static stability and only the basic of blackbody radiation, just like you. So by thinking meteorologists know nothing about climate is just wrong.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#39    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:30 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 13 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Thank to Al Gore the discoveries of Scientists since the 1950s that had been mostly ignored came to publicity. The fact that a certain greenhouse gas was growing in a dangerous fashion was discovered in 1954 and that the world was consequently warming in 1973. I don't care who jumped on the bandwagon as long as the majority are now aware of the problem. Now they either react or suffer the consequences.


Why aren't i surprised that you would thank Al Gore. A man who is correct in saying that Earth is warming but uses wrong data to draw the conclusion that Earth is warming. Sounds like ?

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#40    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,791 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:22 PM

View PostBFB, on 13 April 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Why aren't i surprised that you would thank Al Gore. A man who is correct in saying that Earth is warming but uses wrong data to draw the conclusion that Earth is warming. Sounds like ?

Because without him, even if mostly he was spouting emotional BS, the problem would still be ignored. Like carbon increase was since the 50s and warming since the 70s. Once you had him and the film it got near to impossible to ignore it anymore, and then we have seen by the reaction of interested parties that the problem was real. Else nobody would spend lots of millions in shareholder money to deny it happening (and lately spending even more to say it is happening but we have nothing to do with it) .

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#41    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,791 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:29 PM

View PostBFB, on 13 April 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

What do you mean by "switch the theme"?

Questionmark i dont now what you are going on about. Or i think so, but cannot see the point? Is it because you are trying to tell me that meteorologists don't know anything about climate? That 60% of the education to become a climatologist is studing meteorology?

As a student in meteorology i can tell you we study the Earth system, radiative transfer, atmospheric thermodynamics, atmospheric dynamics, climate dynamics, the atmospheric boundary layer and a lot more. (All a must in climatology) We dont just study weather systems and cloud microphysics, there's a lot more in the field of meteorology than just doing weather .

Your argument that meteorologists knows as little as you do is completely ridiculous. With out a background in meteorology it's pretty hard to understand how our climate works. Many geologists who want to become a climatologist need a degree in meteorology or at least many supplement courses in the field of meteorology. I have a geologist in my class, he worked for the city council for about 20 years but wanted to move into the field of climatology since the city council closed down his department. He virtually had no knowledge of adiabatic processes and static stability and only the basic of blackbody radiation, just like you. So by thinking meteorologists know nothing about climate is just wrong.

Well, putting the words in my mouth, aintcha? What I am saying is that this meteorologist was certainly not working in a research capacity else he would have needed a PhD to do that for the government. And that he is the only one with possibly qualified opinion among those guys up there. If all he was doing is drawing weather charts, like most meteorologists without a PhD do for the government, his insight on the research and methodology would be about as big as yours and mine. All he can do is read the papers the others produce. And even there the correct method is not to sign a list but producing a paper of your own REFUTING the findings. So far all paper that I have seen to this effect, well does Munchhausen sound like something you know?

Edited by questionmark, 13 April 2012 - 01:29 PM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#42    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:34 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 13 April 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Because without him, even if mostly he was spouting emotional BS, the problem would still be ignored. Like carbon increase was since the 50s and warming since the 70s. Once you had him and the film it got near to impossible to ignore it anymore, and then we have seen by the reaction of interested parties that the problem was real. Else nobody would spend lots of millions in shareholder money to deny it happening (and lately spending even more to say it is happening but we have nothing to do with it) .

Thats true. Without him the media wouldn't have picked it up, so i retract my previous comment.

I still don't like him though. He is inventor of "Make a HUGE amount of money by selling your carbon credits to the big companies"

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#43    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:57 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 13 April 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

Well, putting the words in my mouth, aintcha? What I am saying is that this meteorologist was certainly not working in a research capacity else he would have needed a PhD to do that for the government. And that he is the only one with possibly qualified opinion among those guys up there. If all he was doing is drawing weather charts, like most meteorologists without a PhD do for the government, his insight on the research and methodology would be about as big as yours and mine. All he can do is read the papers the others produce.

Okay i might have misunderstood your point. But he is not even a meteorologist! As i have said earlier. He doesn't have a degree in meteorology. He is a self-proclaimed meteorologist.

View Postquestionmark, on 13 April 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

well does Munchhausen sound like something you know?

Trying to be funny?

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#44    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:31 PM

View PostParacelse, on 13 April 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

I'm an American who just happen to be born in France and who lives there for the moment :P and sorry, I don't believe in global warming.

Good. Hope you enjoy it there. I will surely visit France in the future.

Quote

Knowing we just getting out of the last ice age it is normal that the climate becomes warmer.

Ice ages (and following warmer periods) have been driven by changes in the earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles). The temperature variations during this cycles are much more gradual than what we are living right now. Also note than during those cycles, GHG have increased as a result of temperature increase, not the opposite like today.

As stated in the IPCC Report; "These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change."

Then going into the FAQ 2.1; "Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."

"Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."


Quote

Furthermore, the creation of a paranoia involving CO2 has permitted the creation of a carbon tax on which corporate greed is preying like vultures.


I understand your concern about it but it dosen't change the scientific facts and real-time observations that all show an increase in global temperature.

Quote

Explain to me why EU has not banned the use of 2 stroke engine who pollutes more than my little Citroen diesel?

Why would I know that? And how would that be evidence that global warming is a myth? And why specifically 2-stoke engines? There are vehicles that pollute much more and that are also recreative. Why not banning them all?

Quote

Why streets in towns and cities have been narrowed down slowing to almost an alt when one knows that it's the change in acceleration that creates more pollution.  It doesn't make sense.

The amount of pollution from a car depends on how much fuel it burns. Greater accelerations burn more fuel, yes. But there are some many other factors involved here concerning car pollution. It also depends on it's weight, gear ratios, power/torque curve; the engine's displacement, management and condition. And it also depends on the kind of fuel they burn. We could go far.

Quote

Why the excellent public transportation available in the 70's is now down to half?

I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live (Québec) we have more public transportation and we are planning to change 95% of our buses for electric ones.

Quote

Trust me with gas price as high as they are here (1.50 euros for a LITER of diesel) people would use public transportation.

Right. And that is exactly what's going on here.

Quote

When I go to Metz or Nancy for business it's cheaper for me to take the car than take the train and that's include parking.  45 kms by train to Metz (about 27 miles) costs 14,27 euros round trip and costs me 7 euros by car.
There is something wrong with the system, although I really don't want ramble over it because it would go towards the conspiracy theories.
Peace to you to.

A carbon tax could be used to help with this. If we tax carbon, it could lead people to use more public transportation and that could result in lower costs for it. That is also an objective of a carbon tax. But that depends on political decisions and that could vary from place to place. If done right, it could be a positive thing. I won't go too far in it as well because there is a lot of stuff. I'll keep reading what the World Bank is sayig about it and perhaps come back with more.

Peace again bro.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#45    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:36 PM

View PostVigilanis, on 13 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

The biggest problem I can see is that all of this 'Environmental' vogue, has just become the latest religion to riddle the planet. And we are already arriving at the stage where, in the same vein as the world religions, you cannot question their validity without being branded a heretic and being viewed negatively by society.

I look around the English landscape which is now full of the growing malignant cancer that is the wind turbine, something that would probably have to work it's whole life just to offset the so called 'carbon footprint' of it's own construction and erection, and can't help looking at the hysteria this new religion is causing. Unlike the other religions though, I hope this one goes away.

I mean come on...Al Gore wins accolades for film making?..it just shows, anyone can jump on the band wagon and become a champion of the new faithful.

A religion is based of beleifs. Climatology is based on science. Your way of comparing both things is pathetic. No harm intended.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users